Talk:Muktananda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muktananda article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Life 2 Parabrahma 3 Meditation experiences 4 Further Reading

[edit] Life

I felt that "become one with Parabrahma" was a concept that would not be easily understandable by an average reader of Wikipedia. Parabrahma does not have an article. I decided to remove that phrase and simplify the sentence it originally belonged to.

I also simplified the sentence about Muktananda's meditation experiences in yeola. The experiences were characterized as extraordinary. Yet there is no easy way for a Wikipedia reader to understand what was extraordinay about them without reading the book.

TheRingess 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence about the number of centers and ashrams. A lot of SY's centers were established after Muktananda died. Also, that figure is not mentioned in either article. Probably to determine how many centers that Muktananda started we would need a figure from the SYDA foundation. It might be more accurate to say that the SYDA foundations established the centers.

TheRingess 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parabrahma

A search of wikipedia will reveal that there are 4 or 5 articles which use the word and perhaps the time is right for someone to write about Parabrahma. Lumos3 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't object to the word "Parabrahma". I know that it is in use in several other articles and agree that it would make a nice article. What I object to is the phrase "one with parabrahma". As far as I know, there is no accepted, neutral definition of that phrase. It is as meaningful as saying, Nityananda said, "Ooggaaa boogga boo". It does not add to the article, it detracts from it.

TheRingess 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation experiences

The key moment in his life was Nityananda's declaration of Muktananda's spiritual achievement. I have restored the bare facts. It would be wrong to exclude this signifcant point in his life. Lumos3 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "intense" that was used to describe Muktananda's meditation experiences. I believe that it is a non-neutral word.

It's also impossible for the reader to determine how the author of the article arrived at that assessment. So in the interests of keeping the article neutral, I removed it. Otherwise, we will have to allow other editors to give their assessment of Muktananda's experiences, and this could be problematic at best. If the casual reader wants to do further research, they can read the book and determine for themselves whether his experiences, were "intense", "extraordinary", "fantastic", "wonderful" or somewhere in between. TheRingess 01:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

I think that this section does not need to be split into two parts, it seems to clutter the article unnecessarily. I don't think the article really needs a complete bibliography either, but can't decide which ones to delete. I also removed the word "important" from the description of the Caldwell essay, as it is my general opinion, that assertions of importance need a source and none was provided. Also, I replaced the word "insider" with the word student, as it seems to me that in this context, a casual reader might not be familiar with its meaning and the word "student" seems simpler. TheRingess 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence concerning the Caldwell article. The article might be better served, if Kaula had a definition with sources then another editor could add a section here that details the similarities (and perhaps differences) between the two teachings, and uses Caldwell's article as a primary source. TheRingess 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think it is correct to mix books by the subject together with books by others. I have seen other articles with a bibliography section. Since he authored books, there should be a clear list of them. IPSOS 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave one section called "Further reading" and split the books section into 2, books by him and books concerning him. TheRingess 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the division. At the least the bibliography probably should be at the end after the notes section. TheRingess 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's a standard, apparently. It should be part of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). IPSOS 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)